RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

u/s 271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service\nof notice and orders which read as follows :\n8. In view of the above, it is essential that before any action is taken,\ncommunication of the notice must be done in terms of the provisions

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961. if you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being\nheard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on\nor before the date fixed for hearing on 29.12.2016 at 01:00PM which will be considered\nbefore such order (s) is/are made.\n12/16

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMIED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)© of the Act are initiated separately against the assessee in view of discussion in para 5. Words “and/or” have been used between the two limbs, pointing out to the fact that ld. AO himself was not aware which limb was to be invoked. 5. Ld. AO in the penalty order, dated 19.09.2013, in the first round

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 274 of the Act penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which is at page 216 of the paper book of the assessee and the AO failed to point out specific default for imposition of penalty i.e furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the act of the AO by not striking

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c), ld. AO has to apply his mind and come to a conclusion that whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of incomeORfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1.2. In the penalty proceedings, there is heavy onus on the ld. AO, initiating penalty, of proving the assessee firm guilty of concealment of income as penalty

AMAR BHARTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.Q. has service notice u/s.142(1) of the LT. Act. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) on various dated as per para 4 of this order, were served upon the assesse through Speed Post as well as through Notice Server. The appellant remains silent

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

section 271(1)(c), therefore, this is a fit case for the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)." Thus it would be seen that whereas show cause notice did not contain any ground whereas penalty has been levied on the ground of concealment. In this regard it is submitted that the Karnataka High Court in the case

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

section 271 (1) (c). 5 ITA 1266/JP/2019_ M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT It is pertinent to note that in the said assessment order and notice Ld. A.O. has not clearly mentioned the limb, on the basis of which, penalty was proposed to be imposed. Ld. A.O. in assessment order or penalty notices did not specified the limb under which

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. 5.1 During the appellate proceedings the assessee has disputed the penalty on grounds that she never received any of the notices and that service was not established. However it is admitted that notice u/s 142(1) was received by the tax consultant

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) "Revision-Erroneous and prejudicial order Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings-Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

BHANWARI DEVI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

penalty and order to assessee U/s 271(1)(b) and 22/11/2018 Show cause notice for ex-parte assessment U/s 144 The AO has not mentioned in the order about the efforts of serving the notice that: o Whether the assessee refused to accept the notice. o Whether the assessee was not found at the place. o Whether the assessee

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.6,37,200/-\nconfirmed by him in quantum proceedings.\n2.\nThe appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.\n3.\nNecessary cost be awarded to the assessee.\n3.\nSince both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to\nsame assessment year and argued

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

penalty under section 271.]" On perusal of Rule 46A reproduced hereinabove, it is seen that the case of the appellant is covered by sub-rule (1) Clause (b) as he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Such additional evidence which goes

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs. 6,37,200/- confirmed by him in quantum proceedings. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3. Since both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to same assessment year